12 hours ago, Lyynark said:
- GA-67: 8 -> 2, Utter gimmick and by no stretch of the imagination is he worth a crew slot AND 8 points. He should have added the calculate action as well.
GA-97 does add calculate. He could be cheaper though. I've tried him a couple times and concluded the list was better without him.
3 hours ago, theBitterFig said:This kind of opens up a question: Is Kavil secretly OP, but effectively blah because there aren't any better-than-mediocre turrets? I mean, in a world where there's a strong Synced Turret or any kind of Twin Laser Turret, dude might just need a price increase.
Ion Turret Kavil is kind of a bargain at 48.
Even with Dorsal, an I5 with that kind of coverage is decent at 46... just not a great deal of fun, in this form.
He'd need to go straight up with a strong turret.
I'm happy with turrets at their current level, there are a number of pilots that can quite nasty with them, they remain a bit of an anathema. However, I would not mind a bowtie, 2 die, R2-3 TLT with no special effects. Perhaps an ordnance icon.
Leftfield, top of my head. Heavy Laser Turret. R3 only. 4 die. 2 recurring charges, spend 2 to fire, ordnance icon, defender doubles their agility.
I'm really hoping that Padme and Handmaidens go down in price. I'd get a 3rd N1 for that. Just to try a trio of Padme + 2 Handmaidens.
Hope the Hyenas go down too.
And really debating on getting 4 nantex.
Jedi Knights down to 36. Battle Meds like 5-6 points. Maybe even 3-4.
Wish belly rubs had some more interesting toys.
Same with Bwings.
1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:Battle Meds like 5-6 points. Maybe even 3-4.
Battle Med is potentially very powerful. It's cost before the update made it enormously tricky to leverage well. With the slight reduction, it has a bit more room to breathe, but it's still awkward.
I think it needs more exploration at its current cost before knowing for sure if it's still too much, the current Republic meta has no call for it but that may well change. Dropping it another point or 2 would obviously encourage that but I'd be leery of dropping it further.
15 hours ago, Tyhar7 said:Agree with most of this but the Finn needs a reduction since the rules ref update.
Generally believe that all the pods need a reduction, they currently don’t have much of a role apart from a filler ship and at this stage for a few more points you can get a full transport.
Some of the other crew could also do with dropping a few points. Nothing seeing play other than C3PO and Leia.
I don't think Finns needs a reduction actually. As a filler ship he's excellent at 30 with Heroic. He can tank one shot reliably and would require a hefty commitment to be destroyed. And if ignored he hits way above his weight class. The other pods, well, I guess they are kind of sidelined by Finn.
I omitted Rose, Paige, Caydel Connix, Korr Sella and C3PO. Rose is pretty potent, especially on a ship that double-tap. She might see a lot more play with cheaper MG-100's. Same goes for Paige. Korr Sella is kind of situational in that she works mostly on the transport/pod.
12 hours ago, asterborn said:GA-97 does add calculate. He could be cheaper though. I've tried him a couple times and concluded the list was better without him.
Right you are! He still sucks though. Would have been interesting if he could have been placed on the ship that is put in reserve. Not sure if it would make much of a difference though? Perhaps adding the line "After you perform a [calculate] action, gain 1 calculate token" would make him more viable since he could provide a bit of defensive consistency for tranports, YT's and MG-100's that way?
Not sure if it's been said already, but I figure a large problem in trying to balance the individual ships is in how there are points 'thresholds' that limit it severely. There's a potentially *HUGE* difference between 41 and 40 points. A way to limit that might be to implement limitations on how many of a certain ship 'type' can be included in a list, or perhaps better yet make it so each ship takes up a certain amount of "hangar space".
Example: Tie Fighters and similar filler/swarm ships take up 1 out of 8 ship slots. X-Wings and similar ships take up 2 out of 8 slots, with medium and large ships having a varying degree of 2-4 'points' in cost (most would likely fit the 3 points bill).
Major problem with this idea: Basing the point system on the max number of ships currently allowed might restrict things too much. 8 Tie Fighters will almost always beat 4 X-Wings due to sheer numbers after all. Could make the cost based on the pilot instead of course, would make really strong support ships like Howlrunner more of a thought to bring? Or alternatively the system would need a points overhaul where you might have 25 "hangar points", where a Tie is worth 3 and a x-wing is worth 6 etc. etc.
Convoluted and kinda dumb in the end, and something that I would not expect them to implement this edition even if anyone considers it a good idea... Though it could be done as part of the tournament pack I suppose.
4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:I'm really hoping that Padme and Handmaidens go down in price. I'd get a 3rd N1 for that. Just to try a trio of Padme + 2 Handmaidens.
Padmé Amidala (45)
Naboo Handmaiden (44)
Naboo Handmaiden (44)
Total: 133
You have a specific build that you're hard locked into that won't fit or something?
On 10/7/2019 at 6:36 PM, Cuz05 said:*mumble* Imp aces still exactly the same
This.
4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:I'm really hoping that Padme and Handmaidens go down in price. I'd get a 3rd N1 for that. Just to try a trio of Padme + 2 Handmaidens.
Hope the Hyenas go down too.
And really debating on getting 4 nantex.
Jedi Knights down to 36. Battle Meds like 5-6 points. Maybe even 3-4.
Wish belly rubs had some more interesting toys.
Same with Bwings.
Padme/Handmaidens down a bit, Ric and baby-Anakin up a little, seems fair. -2/-2 and +2/+2 doesn't strike me as too bad.
Mixed on Hyena, they seem mostly fine. Bombardment Drone and DBS-32C can probably come down a little, but the missile-based ones and 404 seem OK. 7 points for 2 health over a Vulture is a pretty good deal.
[...]
For Belbullabs, there's room to play with the Tactical Relay slot. Right now, it's only used for the solitary uplinks. Having non-Solitary upgrades that didn't have buff auras could be interesting. A single charge of stress relief would be amazing on them (fully execute a white maneuver, spend a charge, remove a stress, maybe have a penalty based on die roll?), but any sort of upgrade which they could take in the slot would be options. I've enjoyed flying my bubbles, but there isn't really much you can do with their builds.
B-Wings are about to get S-Foils of some kind. That'll be something. I also keep thinking that a cool upgrade for the B-Wing would be one which reduces their primary weapon value and reduce the cost (with no other tricks). Simply doing that would make cannon-based or torpedo-based B-Wings possible, and that'd be interesting.
Oh, and could we please knock 32-c down to 36 points (same as the i1 beeble) and/or give him a payload slot
Dude has such potential to be incredible fun, but his current cost is a joke!
Him and the bombard drones
3 hours ago, RejjeN said:Not sure if it's been said already, but I figure a large problem in trying to balance the individual ships is in how there are points 'thresholds' that limit it severely. There's a potentially *HUGE* difference between 41 and 40 points. A way to limit that might be to implement limitations on how many of a certain ship 'type' can be included in a list, or perhaps better yet make it so each ship takes up a certain amount of "hangar space".
Example: Tie Fighters and similar filler/swarm ships take up 1 out of 8 ship slots. X-Wings and similar ships take up 2 out of 8 slots, with medium and large ships having a varying degree of 2-4 'points' in cost (most would likely fit the 3 points bill).
Major problem with this idea: Basing the point system on the max number of ships currently allowed might restrict things too much. 8 Tie Fighters will almost always beat 4 X-Wings due to sheer numbers after all. Could make the cost based on the pilot instead of course, would make really strong support ships like Howlrunner more of a thought to bring? Or alternatively the system would need a points overhaul where you might have 25 "hangar points", where a Tie is worth 3 and a x-wing is worth 6 etc. etc.
Convoluted and kinda dumb in the end, and something that I would not expect them to implement this edition even if anyone considers it a good idea... Though it could be done as part of the tournament pack I suppose.
I’ve thought about something similar. They could introduce “squadron cards” similar to wings that give a discount to ships. Something like:
Red Squadron
Your squadron must consist of 4 T-65 X-Wings
[maybe: other letter fighters]
. Reduce the cost of each by 1.
I'd like it if FO could fly one more named TIE FO in a swarm. Maybe a title that reduces the cost by one or something.
As a converted FO player, I feel like the faction is in a good place, but I'm worried they might raise the price on Kylo.
3 hours ago, RejjeN said:Not sure if it's been said already, but I figure a large problem in trying to balance the individual ships is in how there are points 'thresholds' that limit it severely. There's a potentially *HUGE* difference between 41 and 40 points. A way to limit that might be to implement limitations on how many of a certain ship 'type' can be included in a list, or perhaps better yet make it so each ship takes up a certain amount of "hangar space".
Example: Tie Fighters and similar filler/swarm ships take up 1 out of 8 ship slots. X-Wings and similar ships take up 2 out of 8 slots, with medium and large ships having a varying degree of 2-4 'points' in cost (most would likely fit the 3 points bill).
Major problem with this idea: Basing the point system on the max number of ships currently allowed might restrict things too much. 8 Tie Fighters will almost always beat 4 X-Wings due to sheer numbers after all. Could make the cost based on the pilot instead of course, would make really strong support ships like Howlrunner more of a thought to bring? Or alternatively the system would need a points overhaul where you might have 25 "hangar points", where a Tie is worth 3 and a x-wing is worth 6 etc. etc.
Convoluted and kinda dumb in the end, and something that I would not expect them to implement this edition even if anyone considers it a good idea... Though it could be done as part of the tournament pack I suppose.
completely agree, but what you're saying here could already be done quite simply... they need to put limited dot on the pdf instead of printed! But they refuse to go back, admit a mistake, and carry on. And the longer they wait, the less chance that they'll actually do it.
It's kinda sad in a way. The fix exist, is easily accessible, and we'll never get it. Instead points will sometimes be awkward for certain ship, or they'll print a fix card.
Just now, DarthSempai said:completely agree, but what you're saying here could already be done quite simply... they need to put limited dot on the pdf instead of printed! But they refuse to go back, admit a mistake, and carry on. And the longer they wait, the less chance that they'll actually do it.
The problem with limiting the ship chassis is that, if 5 X-Wings is broken, and 5 B-Wings is broken, then 4 X-Wings + 1 B-Wing will probably also be broken.
On 10/7/2019 at 6:39 PM, TasteTheRainbow said:u wings up
@TasteTheRainbow
I agree with everything you say except this.
If the U-Wing goes up anymore it won't be worth flying. I get that its too spammable though. I wish they had made the ship unique in a way that you could only bring one. Maybe they could increase the cost of the title?
Unpopular opinion *(probably)
Generic Tie Fighters/Interceptors/Bombers should go down (just bump barrage rockets slightly up to balance)
Snap shot and Foresight should swap points. Snap is uselessly overcosted at 7 and Foresight is a STEAL at 4 (especially if it ends up being true that you can use them during the engagement phase as missiles)
1 hour ago, AngryAlbatross said:@TasteTheRainbow I agree with everything you say except this.
If the U-Wing goes up anymore it won't be worth flying. I get that its too spammable though. I wish they had made the ship unique in a way that you could only bring one. Maybe they could increase the cost of the title?
Unpopular opinion *(probably)
Generic Tie Fighters/Interceptors/Bombers should go down (just bump barrage rockets slightly up to balance)
Snap shot and Foresight should swap points. Snap is uselessly overcosted at 7 and Foresight is a STEAL at 4 (especially if it ends up being true that you can use them during the engagement phase as missiles)
hot opinion time, but foresight is overcosted at 4, and snap is correct at 7.
Foresight needs you to line up a bulleyes with a low ps, spend a force in advance to fire it (and you don't know if you'll actually use the mod before rolling dice, making it worse than just spending a force.) On a jedi knight it also kills the double action of the ship, and it can't interact with CLT. 2-3 points would have been perfect for this card.
Snap shot at 7 however, almost doubles the firepower of small ships like tie-fighter or torrents, so is easier to use with lower PS ships. Cover a wider area, and gives a pseudo full arc to the front opposed to just a bulleyes. Forceless pilot also tend to cost less that generic force users. I feel that 7 is where it should be.
8 minutes ago, DarthSempai said:Foresight needs you to line up a bulleyes with a low ps, spend a force in advance to fire it (and you don't know if you'll actually use the mod before rolling dice, making it worse than just spending a force.) On a jedi knight it also kills the double action of the ship, and it can't interact with CLT. 2-3 points would have been perfect for this card.
Target to land in your bullseye (you're not lining it up for the bonus attack trigger. Your opponent is) and is not Init dependant. A high Init force user has as much utility with it as a low Init and a larger pool to make use of it with.
As a first order player I feel we are in a good place. I do not expect changes. Eventually fanatical will go up it's just too good at 2 points but at the same time it doesn't show up on some of our best lists.
When it comes to ships like the TIE aggressor I have a cynical expectation that they will be over costed until the 2.0 version is available. I don't even fault ffg for it makes sense to focus on hyperspace stuff first.
2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:Target to land in your bullseye (you're not lining it up for the bonus attack trigger. Your opponent is) and is not Init dependant. A high Init force user has as much utility with it as a low Init and a larger pool to make use of it with.
High Init Foresight helps to keep the area in front of the ship clear next turn. Low init helps keep it clear this turn.
That said, I actually think it isn't a great idea on the other Jedi. Luminara, Obi, and potentially Plo want to use their force for their supporting abilities. It might not be bad on 7b Mace. I don't think it would be good on Anakin though, as he often is not pointed at anyone.
Honestly, I've been playing with foresight jedi knights a lot lately. 4 points seems like it's right around perfect.
I'm hesitant to do any powerful turrets for two big reasons:
Kavil's already been discussed as a potential OP meta disaster waiting to happen, but VTG was only recently a meta monster, so we know exactly how that will be used (or try to be used). Any 3+ dice turret that deals damage instead of status tokens is a potential problem in the hands of scurrgs, y-wings, etc, and I can guarantee that some people still lust for the "good old days" of powerful double-tapping lists. They'll try to make it work, and IMO, VTG spam wasn't fun to fight. That much double-tapping firepower chased a lot of list design options out of the game.
Both VTG and Kavil, and perhaps other unforseen combos, will need to be nerfed when introducing such a turret... whether by ability errata (will make people mad), or by being priced out of the meta with room to spare (will make people mad). Even if it's expensive, there could be problems with lists of 2 double-tapping 3dice/3dice scurrgs and wingmen, because it's cheaper than 4 ships.
If we could solve these issues, I think the TIE Aggressor and Attack Shuttle would be very happy about getting a wider range of turret options. There are also implications for Scurrgs and Y-Wings even without VTG; there's value to being able to cover your sides or back with a 3-dice weapon in case the enemy slips your torpedo arc. Strong turrets add a lot of coverage against arc-dodgy ships.
On 10/8/2019 at 4:38 PM, Cuz05 said:Leftfield, top of my head. Heavy Laser Turret. R3 only. 4 die. 2 recurring charges, spend 2 to fire, ordnance icon, defender doubles their agility.
That scares me. The 2 recurring charges (so every other round) is interesting, but it just encourages running away and playing cagey. Double-agility is horrible for all the 1-agility ships: 4 attack dice (maybe 5 with Kavil or Trick Shot) vs their 2 defense dice, and they're chasing the turret user so they're regularly at range 3 (so their shot against you are fine, but they get extra defense against your shots)...
All told, that might be a Dash lite weapon that lots of ships would love to abuse.
Currently there are 6 ships with the turret upgrade, maybe more (I haven't updated Compare Ship Upgrade Slots in a bit)
Y-Wing A
Y-Wing B
Attack Shuttle
TIE Aggressor
VCX-100
Scurrg
We have to consider what any turret would do in the hands of each of those ships. And their pilots, as Kavil shows us. And who knows what other combos lurk. I think this is why we're not seeing new turrets being scheduled -- the turrets we have are already a trick to balance. Nothing can work in isolation; combos and spam potential matter a lot.
As for what's wrong with scum and what to fix, we have a thread dedicated to that . Summary:
I suspect some ships are capped on how low they can go by the spam potential -- too many of a certain ship could be trouble, as I just brought up with double-tappers. But in other cases it's neglect. Scum hasn't had its points adjusted in a long time, while enduring nerf after nerf. The one-two punch is killing them.
While I know the devs read the forum and pay attention to the community, I seriously doubt they pay much attention to fan's wishlisting, something all this type of threads devolve into.
With that said, I hope the do what they hinted in the AMA and look closely how to improve the "mid-lvl" games or something like that they called it, and not just the top tier playing and it's relentless pursuit of loopholes and blindspots in the rules to get ahead of the game.
6 minutes ago, LUZ_TAK said:While I know the devs read the forum and pay attention to the community, I seriously doubt they pay much attention to fan's wishlisting, something all this type of threads devolve into.
With that said, I hope the do what they hinted in the AMA and look closely how to improve the "mid-lvl" games or something like that they called it, and not just the top tier playing and it's relentless pursuit of loopholes and blindspots in the rules to get ahead of the game.
I ain’t waitlisting. I’m putting my predictions out there so that I can do prediction correction and for others to see if I’ve got the right idea. I had a lot of good guesses the last time.
Also it’s good to hash out ideas and get my ideas looked at.
Ok. I have a jokey suggestion:
Interceptors
Alphas 32 limit 5- Idk what these should really cost honestly. Init1 glass cannons aren't my forte. Heck, I still think 6 ints would not be overpowered.
Sabers 36 - definitely less than naked Petranakis
Turr Phennir - 37 LOL
Soontir Fel [redacted by order of the Senate]
9 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:Ok. I have a jokey suggestion:
Interceptors
Alphas 32 limit 5- Idk what these should really cost honestly. Init1 glass cannons aren't my forte. Heck, I still think 6 ints would not be overpowered.
Sabers 36 - definitely less than naked Petranakis
Turr Phennir - 37 LOL
Soontir Fel [redacted by order of the Senate]
As long as you're joking, you forgot to the cost of Fel's Wrath.
In my experience, TIE Interceptor swarms are great fun, but they're Zerglings. If you can kill even one, you sharply drop their power output, and usually you can kill more than one in an exchange. That many red dice can do some harm, but they're usually relying on their tokens for defense instead of offense because of their rock-bottom init. It's possible a 6th would be trouble but I'd have to see it actually perform. I'd be more interested in how many I can shove into a fleet with Howlrunner; that's when a swarm of 3-dice generics becomes really scary. If the opponent's ships fail to remove howl, they're losing something valuable on that first exchange.
Assuming 32 point alphas and a 40-point Howl, you're looking at 5 interceptors and howl. That's when things get scary.
1 hour ago, Wazat said:As long as you're joking, you forgot to the cost of Fel's Wrath.
In my experience, TIE Interceptor swarms are great fun, but they're Zerglings. If you can kill even one, you sharply drop their power output, and usually you can kill more than one in an exchange. That many red dice can do some harm, but they're usually relying on their tokens for defense instead of offense because of their rock-bottom init. It's possible a 6th would be trouble but I'd have to see it actually perform. I'd be more interested in how many I can shove into a fleet with Howlrunner; that's when a swarm of 3-dice generics becomes really scary. If the opponent's ships fail to remove howl, they're losing something valuable on that first exchange.
Assuming 32 point alphas and a 40-point Howl, you're looking at 5 interceptors and howl. That's when things get scary.
Oooh. I somewhat agree. :)
I don't know the math, but idk if one preroll on 3 dice is as potent as more 2dicers.
(add more later)